Calcutta High Court
Satish Vishanji Futnani vs Arul Madhusudhan Futnani And Ors on 20 August, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
ORDER SHEET
CC 57 of 2012
IA GA 2 OF 2024
IA GA 3 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
SATISH VISHANJI FUTNANI
Versus
ARUL MADHUSUDHAN FUTNANI AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date : 20th August, 2024.
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv.
Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.
...For the petitioner
Mr. Venkatesh Mohanraj, Adv.
Mr. Sandip Kumar De, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Dashpande, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.
...For respondent no. 1
Mr. Anupam Dasadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Suvam Sinha, Adv.
...For respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4
The Court : Contempt Rule is taken up for consideration
subsequent to our earlier judgment and order dated August 1, 2024.
Contemners are physically present in Court. They are
identified by the respective advocates appearing for them.
Attention of the Court is drawn to an order dated August 14,
2024 passed in SLP (C) No(s). 18239/2024 by which, the Special Leave
Petition directed against the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024
passed by us was allowed to be withdrawn with leave to raise all
contentions before the High Court as are available under law.
Learned advocates appearing for the contmners submit on the
basis of instructions from their respective clients that, their clients will
make over actual physical possession of the Chennai property to the
Joint Receivers on August 21, 2024 at 1 P.M. Again on the basis of
instructions of their clients learned advocates for the contemners submit
that, there will be no breach of peace at the locale. Therefore, there
would be no necessity for any police assistance to be rendered to the
Joint Receivers while taking possession.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that, there are
orders passed in contempt jurisdiction directing police presence.
However, for the present moment Joint Receivers are willing to visit the
locale for the purpose of taking actual physical possession without any
police presence in view of submissions made in Court on behalf of the
contemners. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that, there exists an order passed in contempt jurisdiction
directing cancellation of the sale deed in respect of the property in
question.
Learned advocate for the contemners submits that, the
personal presence of the contemners be dispensed with on their
undertaking to be present as and when directed by the Court.
We considered the rival contentions of the parties.
We held in the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 that
the property in question is custodia legis and that the possession of the
Joint Receivers was illegally interfered with.
Contemners are seeking to purge themselves of the acts of
contempt by making over actual physical possession of the Chennai
property to the Joint Receivers. Consequently, it would be appropriate to
direct the Joint Receivers to visit the locale in question at 1 P.M. for the
purpose of taking actual physical possession of the property in question.
In view of the assurance given on behalf of the contemners
that, there would be no untoward incident or breach of peace or the Joint
Receivers would not be prevented from taking actual physical possession
of the property in question, we are not directing police assistance for the
present moment.
On the prayer made on behalf of the Joint Receivers, they are
permitted to take all requisite measures necessary for the purpose of
protecting their actual physical possession, in respect of the property
concerned.
Prayer for dispensation of the personal presence of the
contemners will be considered on August 22, 2024 in view of the
direction issued today and in view of the past conduct of the contemners
in the earlier contempt proceedings.
List the Rule on August 22, 2024 for further consideration.
IA GA 2 of 2024 is an application seeking stay of the
contempt proceedings.
We decided to issue contempt rule by our judgment and order
dated August 1, 2024 against which a Special Leave Petition was
preferred and withdrawn.
Question therefore of granting stay of the contempt rule does
not arise.
The order dated August 14, 2024 permitting the one of the
contemners to withdraw such Special Leave Petition filed by him
recorded that it was open to such contemners to raise all contentions
before the High Court as are available to him under the law. In response
to the contempt rule, the contemners may file an affidavit taking all
points as are available to them in law. Let such affidavit be filed within
two weeks from date.
In view of such direction, IA GA 2 of 2024 is disposed of.
IA GA 3 of 2024 is an application seeking clarification of the
judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. It is contended on behalf of
the contemners making such application that, there are certain findings
recorded in such judgment and order which are erroneous. Again, we
note that the Special Leave Petition was filed which was not entertained
by the Supreme Court.
Question of clarifying any of the findings does not arise. In
such circumstances, IA GA 3 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as
to costs.
Since we did not call for any affidavits in IA GA 2 of 2024
and IA GA 3 of 2024, allegations made in such applications are deemed
to be denied.
Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
TR/
